economist-writing

Economist Writing Style

Overview

The definitive reference for the Stage 3 Writer Agent, Stage 4 Editorial Reviewer, and Article Evaluator. Every article must meet these standards before publication. The gold standard is editorial prose combining data-driven reporting with sharp, opinionated analysis in a confident, conversational tone.

When to Use

• Configuring or updating the Writer Agent system prompt
• Reviewing article quality during Stage 4 editorial review
• Tuning deterministic polish rules for banned patterns
• Evaluating opening, voice, and structure scoring dimensions

When NOT to Use

• For source freshness and diversity — that's research-sourcing
• For visual standards — that's editorial-illustration
• For article scoring mechanics — that's article-evaluation
• For defect pattern codification — that's defect-prevention

Core Process: The 10 Rules

1. Open with a striking, concrete claim

First sentence must make the reader stop — specific fact, surprising statistic, or provocative assertion.

Banned openings: "In today's world", "It's no secret", "The arrival/emergence/rise of", "When it comes to", "Amidst", any sentence starting with "The" + abstract noun.

2. Argue a thesis, not a topic

Every article must have a specific, debatable argument stated in the first two paragraphs. "AI tools overpromise" is a topic. "AI test generators make maintenance worse because they optimise for coverage metrics that don't correlate with quality" is a thesis.

3. Never use numbered or bulleted lists in prose

Lists belong in infographics, not editorial writing. Each point argued in its own paragraph with transitions.

4. Write with authority, not hedging

Banned: "it would be misguided", "one might", "it is worth noting", "it should be noted", "it is important to", "further complicating matters", "invites closer scrutiny", "in practical terms".

5. Name names — use real companies and people

At least 2 named companies or individuals with specific anecdotes. Banned generic attributions: "organisations", "professionals", "studies show", "experts say", "research indicates".

6. Cut ruthlessly — no padding

Remove: throat-clearing ("It goes without saying"), redundant attribution ("As mentioned earlier"), weak intensifiers ("very", "quite", "rather", "fairly").

7. End with a vivid prediction or provocation

Banned closings: "will rest on" / "depends on" / "the key is", "In conclusion" / "To summarise", "Only time will tell", "remains to be seen".

8. Use 3-4 headings maximum

One heading per 250-350 words. Headings should be noun phrases that advance the argument, not questions or descriptions.

9. Integrate data, don't catalogue it

Make the claim first, attribute second. Never start a sentence with a source name + reporting verb.

10. Title must be provocative and memorable

Use a colon to add a surprising twist. Banned: starting with "Why"/"How", starting with "The Impact/Role of", longer than 10 words without a twist.

Length and Density

• Minimum: 600 words
• Sweet spot: 700-1000 words
• Maximum: 1200 words
• Every paragraph must advance the argument — if removing it doesn't weaken the thesis, cut it.

Voice Reference

The Economist voice is: confident (states opinions as observations), witty (dry humour, understated irony), British (organisation, analyse, colour), active ("Companies are racing" not "it is being observed"), conversational (brilliant dinner companion, not textbook), precise (every word chosen deliberately).

Common Rationalizations

Rationalization	Reality
"Lists make content more scannable"	Scannable is for blog posts; editorial prose argues through connected paragraphs
"We need to hedge to be accurate"	Hedging signals uncertainty; The Economist states opinions as observations and lets the evidence do the qualifying
"The opening needs context before the hook"	Context is throat-clearing; the hook IS the context — a striking fact frames the whole piece
"Longer articles are more thorough"	Density beats length; a tight 700-word argument outperforms a padded 1200-word survey
"Generic attribution is safer"	It's lazier — "Microsoft's testing team found" is both more credible and more engaging than "organisations report"
"Summary endings are expected"	Expected by whom? The reader already knows the thesis; end with a provocation that extends the argument

Red Flags

• Article opens with an abstract noun ("The emergence of", "The rise of")
• Bulleted or numbered lists appear in prose body (outside References)
• Hedging phrases: "it is worth noting", "one might argue"
• Generic attribution: "studies show", "experts say", "organisations"
• More than 4 headings in a 1000-word article
• Sentence starts with a source name + reporting verb ("Gartner found...")
• Ending summarises instead of provoking
• American spellings (organization, analyze, color)
• Exclamation points anywhere in the article

Verification

• First sentence contains a striking fact or statistic — evidence: data-bearing token (number, percentage, currency) in sentence 1
• Debatable thesis stated in first two paragraphs — evidence: can be phrased as "The article argues that..."
• Zero bulleted/numbered lists in prose body — evidence: regex ^[-*\d+\.] returns no matches outside References
• Zero banned opening/hedging/closing patterns — evidence: regex scan against all banned pattern lists
• At least 2 named companies or individuals — evidence: proper noun count ≥2
• Word count 600-1200 — evidence: wc -w on body after frontmatter
• British spelling throughout — evidence: spellcheck against American→British dictionary
• 3-4 headings maximum — evidence: ## count ≤4

Integration Points

• Stage 3 Writer Agent — primary consumer of this skill
• Stage 4 Editorial Reviewer — evaluates against these rules
• Article Evaluator — scores opening, voice, structure
• Deterministic Polish — strips banned phrases listed here
• Editorial Judge — post-deployment check against writing quality